Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 1-18 are withdrawn since the claims were amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2020132394 to Sager et al. (cited by applicant) (using U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0023854 as an English equivalence) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0171750 to Gahleitner et al. for the reasons set forth on pages 5-15 of the Office Action of 07/28/2025.
2. New claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 19, as noted above Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 19 recites the PP composition comprises polyethylene (PE) dispersed in the matrix phase.
Gahleitner et al. teaches polyethylene and that heterophasic propylene copolymers comprise a matrix. [0001], [0002]
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 19 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 20, as noted above Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 20 depends.
Claim 20 recites that the constriction element is or forms a sleeve which is configured to receive and circumferentially enclose a distal end of a pipette tip within the inner cavity, wherein the sleeve is adapted to the shape of a distal end of a pipette tip in a liquid-tight manner.
Sager et al. teaches that “the distance element is a sleeve which is configured to receive and circumferentially enclose a distal end of a pipette tip within the inner cavity, without restricting a fluid passage between an inserted pipette tip and the gap.” [0026].
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 20 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Gahleitner is not analogous art:
Applicant argues that Gahleitner is directed to polypropylene compositions for molded articles emphasizing impact resistance and optical performance for automotive and packaging components (see, e.g., 11 [0001]-[0004]). The reference is wholly unconcerned with precision laboratory devices such as pipette tips, which require high dimensional stability, low extractables, low surface energy, and chemical resistance to reagents
Applicant argues that there are different technical problems and objectives between the prior art and applicant’s invention
Applicant argues that Sanger and Gahleitner address entirely different technical problems, with Sanger being focused on pipette tip geometry and assembly for precision liquid handling, and Gahleitner aiming to improve impact strength and gloss of polypropylene molded parts for high-volume industrial and automotive use. In contrast, the claimed invention addresses a distinct technical problem - achieving non-polar, high-stiffness, chemically inert composition optimized for laboratory dispensing components.
Applicant argues that a skilled person starting from Sanger would have no reason to consult Gahleitner, because the two references are directed to unrelated purposes and performance requirements. The differences in the problems addressed further demonstrate that any combination of these teachings could only arise from hindsight reconstruction.
Gahleitner does not mention parts for “high-volume industrial and automotive use” as applicant argues.
Gahleitner does teach that the “moulded articles of the current invention can be containers, such as cups, buckets, beakers, trays or parts of such articles, such as see-through-windows, lids, or the like,” and that “articles of the current invention are also suitable for medical or diagnostic purposes, such as syringes, beakers, titre plates, pipettes, etc.” [0201]. [0202]
Accordingly, Gahleitner is relevant and teaches compositions that are useful for molding pipettes, which would encompass pipette tip extensions. Note, applicant teaches injection molding for producing the pipette tip extensions.
Applicant argues that Gahleitner does not disclose the claimed composition.
The claimed invention requires a non-polar olefin-based composition comprising at least
85 wt-% of a heterophasic polypropylene copolymer (h-PP), wherein the h-PP includes a propylene
random copolymer matrix (r-PPM) and an elastomeric propylene copolymer (e-PP) dispersed in
the matrix phase.
Applicant argues that in contrast, Gahleitner describes multi-phase polymer blends that may contain fillers, polyethylene, or ethylene-propylene rubber additives (see [0040]-[0052]). These blends are not non-polar, are not limited to ≥85 wt-% h-PP, and are optimized for toughness and gloss -
properties unrelated to the functional demands of pipette tips. Rather than providing high stiffness
and dimensional precision, Gahleitner's compositions prioritize impact absorption and surface
finish, which are counterproductive for precision laboratory components.
Gahleitner teaches 85-98 wt % based on the total weight of the composition of a heterophasic propylene/α-olefin copolymer. [0018].
Applicant discloses the polypropylene (PP) composition comprises at least 85 wt-% of a heterophasic polypropylene copolymer (page 3, lines 4-6) and ethylene and/or C4 to C12 olefins, e.g. α-olefins.
Gahleitner’s heterophasic propylene/α-olefin copolymer compositions are believed to be a non-polar olefin-based compositions absent evidence to the contrary inasmuch as Gahleitner et al.’s compositions are substantially similar to applicant’s disclosed compositions.
Applicant argues that there neither Sanger nor Gahleitner provides any teaching, suggestion, or pointer that would motivate a POSITA to apply the specific heterophasic PP composition recited in the claims to a pipette tip. The mere existence of heterophasic PP systems in unrelated industrial fields does not render their application to precision pipette tips obvious.
As noted above, Gahleitner does teach that the “moulded articles of the current invention can be containers, such as cups, buckets, beakers, trays or parts of such articles, such as see-through-windows, lids, or the like,” and that “articles of the current invention are also suitable for medical or diagnostic purposes, such as syringes, beakers, titre plates, pipettes, etc.” [0201]. [0202]
Accordingly, Gahleitner is relevant and teaches compositions that are useful for molding pipettes, which would encompass pipette tip extensions.
Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant argues that even assuming arguendo that a POSITA were to consider using Gahleitner's materials, there would be no reasonable expectation that such substitution would yield a composition suitable for pipette tip applications. The heterophasic PP systems of Gahleitner are engineered for bulk-molded automotive parts - emphasizing ductility and impact strength - whereas pipette tips require rigidity, precise dimensional tolerances, and low extractables.
As noted above, Gahleitner does not mention parts for “high-volume industrial and automotive use” as applicant argues.
Gahleitner teaches injection molding in line with applicant’s disclosure at page 3, line 11. Gahleitner further teaches stiffness [0027] which is comparable to rigidity and that stiffness allows for lower wall thickness [0004], which are not adverse to properties of pipette tip extensions. Note applicants teach mechanical stiffness is desirable at page 29, lines 9-10.
Applicant argues differences in distinct purposes and technical effects
Applicant argues that the claimed invention achieves a different technical effect from that of Gahleitner - namely, providing a non-polar composition with high stiffness, chemical inertness, and
dimensional stability suitable for high-precision liquid dispensing. Gahleitner's compositions, by
contrast, achieve impact resistance and gloss. Because the underlying purposes and effects are
distinct, the skilled person would not have combined the teachings of the two references in the
absence of hindsight.
Gahleitner teaches polypropylene compositions comprising a heterophasic polypropylene and a low-density polyethylene (Abstract) and further teaches that the disclosed compositions are suitable for molding articles, including pipettes.
Applicant argue that Gahleitner is silent on non-polarity and high h-PP content.
Applicant argues that Gahleitner contains no disclosure or suggestion of the non-polar nature of the claimed composition or of a concentration of ≥85 wt-% h-PP. The reference's multi-component
blends inherently introduce polar phases, incompatible with the "non-polar olefin-based" requirement of claim 1. The claimed composition's structural and compositional constraints are therefore neither taught nor suggested by Gahleitner.
As noted above, Gahleitner teaches 85-98 wt % based on the total weight of the composition of a heterophasic propylene/α-olefin copolymer. [0018].
Applicant discloses the polypropylene (PP) composition comprises at least 85 wt-% of a heterophasic polypropylene copolymer (page 3, lines 4-6) and ethylene and/or C4 to C12 olefins, e.g. α-olefins.
Gahleitner’s heterophasic propylene/α-olefin copolymer compositions are believed to be a non-polar olefin-based compositions absent evidence to the contrary inasmuch as Gahleitner et al.’s composition are substantially similar to applicant’s disclosed compositions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798